Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!

Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

I set the cruise at 65 Reset the trip once the cruise was set and recorded the numbers before I turned cruise off.

30 mpg
64 was the average speed
Distance was 5.5 miles

I would expect to see higher numbers?

Not doubting your figures or your methodology, just trying to help troubleshoot - how long into your trip was this test done? Was the engine warm yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by G2Spfld

I drove yesterday 284 miles on highway driving 68 mph with ladder on the kayak mount. Mostly flat road, with air on, 32 mpg. I figured it would be less than that, readout showed 34.2. So who knows, maybe it was the 5.5 miles wasn't really long enough to get a good read. I'm at 6,8XX miles now so things are improving as miles increase.

That's possible. 5.5 miles at 65 miles per hour represents 5 minutes of driving. If there are elevation differences involved, it might have a more significant impact on the overall fuel consumption (vs. being averaged out over a longer drive).

I would consider a 5 minute drive at 65 harsher than city driving. It's the same short trip but faster speed. I understand you started and stopped your counting during the highway drive, but you still used fuel getting to and from that point. I don't think it has to be too technical here. The fact is the 36 hwy is upto 36 hwy, not a guarantee you'll get 36 on the hwy. You might get more, you might get less. Weight is a huge factor, so ideally 10-15 lbs per HP without getting too costly or technical would be a good avg to be in. So if (we) want to get very technical criticizing these cars, we need to be fit and not at all over weight ourselves. I'd say if your under 185 lbs, and drive in auto mode, conservatively using pedal on flat road at speeds not over 65 without air you'll get over the 36 mpg consistently. But these cars are underpowered and with the PSEV they can't breath enough to raise RPM's very quickly. The dang programming is so restrictive you can't gain anything using manual mode, so getting on hwy, and accelerating from a stop uses more energy than it should. Probably much more than other cars its compared to, thus you have to make up for it by having more hwy driving than maybe the corolla or whatever else people "compare" it with. But that's just part of it I guess. Maybe because of these reasons, its more affected by fuel blends than others may be. I have noticed increases are more consistent as my miles rack up. But with these smaller designed motors, increases RPM'S is not necessarily in direct correlation to mpg. You can get 4000-5000 rpm using very little pedal, and you can get 4000-5000 rpm under WOT. The mpg for these two scenarios will not be the same. It's more related to miles driven, vs throttle position and load. There are other variables in there, but point is you can run RPM'S up and not kill mpg since these engines require rpm to generate HP and Tq. If it were a big block, then without a doubt the more rpm, the more fuel and decreased mpg. These are just a different animal.

I havnt seen that yet for any distance to mean anything really. But, I'm not at the point yet where I'm trying to see top numbers. I'm still more concerned at this point that the rings are seated!! Lol. I'm more concerned with being able to recreate a "quick" launch that's repeatable consistently so I can feel confident crossing traffic without getting T-boned. In used to hitting the pedal and being shot across the hwy lanes. Now I'm more like a horse and buggy waiting for a clearing to cross. At 30-45 mph it'll accelerate sufficiently for passing, climbing hills, etc. I just need confidence in the start. Im planning in driving this to Denver in a few months, so I'm looking forward to seeing the mpg on that trip.

I would consider a 5 minute drive at 65 harsher than city driving. It's the same short trip but faster speed.

Completely agree...assuming that it is starting with a cold engine. Agree because I see it every day. We live just off a state highway (brand new, low traffic, super nice!). So I drive .5 miles then hit 65 every morning - 22 miles to work, and my work is also right off the highway (no traffic at 6am). On my way home it is obviously the same, except the first 3-4 miles is pretty heavy stop and go before it clears up. I tend to lose less on the mpg readout and gain slightly more over the trip home than I do on the trip going to work. The traffic and slow speed appear to be best for a warmup rather than hitting the highway. I've been keeping it at 60mph for the first 4-5 miles of my commute in the morning and that seems to be helping overall as well.

I have had my '13 5-door sport premium for about 2 weeks and the gauge shows me dead on 30mpgs and I have gotten about 400miles out of each tank(fill up on last bar of gas gauge) After a 150mile highway trip last weekend I got 34mpg going 80mph with the A/C on. So far so good, and I dont even have 1000miles on the odo yet. Havent done any calculations by hand yet.

I'm getting in the 23-24 mpg range, about a 70/30 city to highway mix. And no long trips on the freeway for that either. I came from a 99 F150 extended cab long box 4x4 that got 12 if I was very lucky (and more often only 10) in the same arena.

My commute has a lot of hills in it which is definitely dragging it down some. But I am very happy to have 1/2 of my new car being paid for by what I am not spending on gas any more.

This weekend I'm doing a trip from Mountlake Terrace, WA to Keremeos, BC which is approximately 300 miles each way, but again pretty hilly. It will be interesting to see what the mileage is like then.

They show the typical 30 mpg EPA highway car gets 35 mpg on a 65 mph highway loop. So does the CVT, which tells you something is wrong with the CVT number of 36 mpg EPA highway, despite all the denial going on here. With "Grandma" driving sure you can get over the EPA estimate with the CVT, and in fact I've gotten over 50, but it's not under what's considered typical highway driving.

Also you have to remember the word "loop" is extremely important here, to average out factors like wind, elevation, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G2Spfld

with these smaller designed motors, increases (sic) RPM'S is not necessarily in direct correlation to mpg.

Sure it is. You can see it yourself by putting the gauge in instantaneous mode and shifting back and forth.

They show the typical 30 mpg EPA highway car gets 35 mpg on a 65 mph highway loop. So does the CVT, which tells you something is wrong with the CVT number of 36 mpg EPA highway, despite all the denial going on here. With "Grandma" driving sure you can get over the EPA estimate with the CVT, and in fact I've gotten over 50, but it's not under what's considered typical highway driving.

Also you have to remember the word "loop" is extremely important here, to average out factors like wind, elevation, etc.

Sure it is. You can see it yourself by putting the gauge in instantaneous mode and shifting back and forth.

I'm having déjà Vu for some reason. Maybe its just the crazy voices in my head I thought had stopped. My family's office didn't get the memo when the mpg estimated avg posted on window stickers turned to a guarantee by the manufacturer without regard to consumer variables. Your still beating the wrong horse Steve, I thought you figured that out by now.
And your dead wrong about the rpm and mpg direct correlation via the instant gauge in the car. That's hardly accurate as this conversation pertains to it. If it were as you say, directly correlated, then a big block that generates power and and Tq at lower rpm would get much better milage due to lower RPM'S. I can raise the RPM'S on this car using 10-15% throttle, and I can also bog it down to under 2000 rpm at WOT and the WOT is using far more fuel. There are far more variables than RPM, I see its not something your familiar with ( auto tuning) but that doesnt change the facts. If you want to argue your point that CR reports should be a percentage above EPA reports then so be it. But don't step into something you do not understand.

My car is a 2012 Impreza four door sedan w/cvt premium model. In June took car to Cape Cod,ma. on vacation. There were 3 adults in car w/ luggage. I filled gas tank before we left. When we got to cape stopped and filled tank . 34.6 miles to gallon.

My car is a 2012 Impreza four door sedan w/cvt premium model. In June took car to Cape Cod,ma. on vacation. There were 3 adults in car w/ luggage. I filled gas tank before we left. When we got to cape stopped and filled tank . 34.6 miles to gallon.

I'm having déjà Vu for some reason. Maybe its just the crazy voices in my head I thought had stopped. My family's office didn't get the memo when the mpg estimated avg posted on window stickers turned to a guarantee by the manufacturer without regard to consumer variables. Your (sic) still beating the wrong horse Steve, I thought you figured that out by now.

You are either very confused, not able to understand English, or are pumping out lame straw men.

I didn't say it was a guarantee, I said it was for comparison purposes, and it compares evenly with cars rated at 30 mpg highway, according to the professional drivers at Consumer Reports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G2Spfld

And your (sic again) dead wrong about the rpm and mpg direct correlation via the instant gauge in the car. That's hardly accurate as this conversation pertains to it. If it were as you say, directly correlated, then a big block that generates power and and Tq at lower rpm would get much better milage due to lower RPM'S. I can raise the RPM'S on this car using 10-15% throttle, and I can also bog it down to under 2000 rpm at WOT and the WOT is using far more fuel. There are far more variables than RPM, I see its not something your familiar with ( auto tuning) but that doesnt change the facts. If you want to argue your point that CR reports should be a percentage above EPA reports then so be it. But don't step into something you do not understand.

There you go again, distorting reality. From what I've seen you don't understand. Of course (as I pointed out to flyboy, but I figured you'd already know, but apparently I'm wrong) if you lug it your mileage will suffer as well as the life of your engine). However, if you're putting the same load on the vehicle which is another obvious condition to most with a very basic understanding of reality which apparently you don't have, the higher gear will give better mpg.

The rest of your points are so far from what I said I'm not even going to try to address them.

You are either very confused, not able to understand English, or are pumping out lame straw men.

I didn't say it was a guarantee, I said it was for comparison purposes, and it compares evenly with cars rated at 30 mpg highway, according to the professional drivers at Consumer Reports.

There you go again, distorting reality. From what I've seen you don't understand. Of course (as I pointed out to flyboy, but I figured you'd already know, but apparently I'm wrong) if you lug it your mileage will suffer as well as the life of your engine). However, if you're putting the same load on the vehicle which is another obvious condition to most with a very basic understanding of reality which apparently you don't have, the higher gear will give better mpg.

The rest of your points are so far from what I said I'm not even going to try to address them.

My points are so far from what you said, cause what you said was 100% inaccurate. The further mine are from yours the better. My garages contain evidence I know what I'm talking about, how's yours?

"100% inaccurate"? LOL. I don't think I would touch anything that came out of "your garage". And your memory suffers as well. I never said rpm and mpg are "directly correlated" They are, however, positively correlated under the same load (which is what you have driving down the road at a steady speed, not accelerating as in your examples).

I would just encourage everyone to get out on the highway, set the cruise control, and see what the difference is generally for instantaneous mpg in different gears.

"100% inaccurate"? LOL. I don't think I would touch anything that came out of "your garage". And your memory suffers as well. I never said rpm and mpg are "directly correlated" They are, however, positively correlated under the same load (which is what you have driving down the road at a steady speed, not accelerating as in your examples).

I would just encourage everyone to get out on the highway, set the cruise control, and see what the difference is generally for instantaneous mpg in different gears.

You disagreed with my remark, talking about something not related to YOU, that said there is no direct correlation between them. Now you say my statement is true after you said its false. Funny how you work. I wouldn't let you touch anything in my garage so no worries. Your example of cruise with instant gauge on and shifting between gears is a perfect example that you do not understand. I'm talking rpm vs mpg. I'll say it again in case you don't remember, there is no direct correlation between rpm and mpg. I didn't say high gear vs low gear, I didn't say 6 th gear vs 5 th gear, I said rpm vs mpg. No direct correlation. Indirect correlation in a given gear, in certain circumstances it will. You can't get off of your CVT argument enough to hear what I was saying. My point was, these smaller motors are made to generate higher RPM'S to use its power, while getting better mpg than say a big block, or even a bigger engine in general. My new corvette will get 35 + mpg on the highway. It has plenty of power ( no you can't drive it) but will not climb ANY hill without shifting out of over drive. That blows your argument you made about that these cars can't climb a hill in 6 th or 5 th ( as you said it) when in manual mode because of the CVT and power from these small motors. Your right, they won't, neither will my vette. My vette, however from a start will get much worse mpg if I run it to 4000 rpm in m mode to shift than if I use lower rpm Tq to pull it. It's made with lower rpm Tq curve so I don't need to. The impreza doesn't have that option, its an underpowered motor to start with, and you need to use RPM'S to make use of the power. Like you said above, lugging it is hard on the engine. Why do you think that is? I'll save you the calculator pushing, its cause it was designed to be revved. Heck, if you never rev it, it'll never stop burning oil cause rings will never seat. So, no there is no direct relation to RPM'S and mpg's. Hope this helps clear things up for you.